Crime Millennial Couple Bikes Through Tajikistan Posts ‘Humans Are Kind’...They Were Killed

[Possum Jenkins]

Well, if Algeria doesn't count, then why should Turkey? I don't think they are necessarily an "European power", atleast not exclusively. They held large territories in North Africa and the Middle East. The argument could be made that they were, but an argument could be made against, as well.

The Ukrainian conflict has seen around 8000 people killed which is about as many as all conflicts in Europe during that time, outside of perhaps the battles against Turks. And the over 100,000 dead in Yugoslav wars easily beat out any number of casualties, even in the battles against Ottomans.

Basically the point was that this period of relative "peace" is by no means unique to European history. We may bring up skirmishes, listed as "battles", in which around a hundred people got killed, but in reality these did not do much to disturb the peace for the average European citizen. We have seen mass shootings where a similar number of people got killed, by foreign terrorists or domestic villains.

As with the conflicts between ex-Yugoslavians, the Western European did not care much about the battles between Eastern Europeans and Ottomans.

The idea that war was no longer a reality for the Western European, had become a very legitimate thing prior to World War 1 breaking out.

Turkey being excluded from Europe would be a pretty poor argument, IMO. They're similar to Russia- partly European and partly Asian, but they've been such an important part of European history that they have to be included. Algeria and all of North Africa has never been even partly European.

And I do think this period of peace is unique. We're slowly getting close to a century and the Yugoslav wars are still the only significant ones. The most impressive thing is that there are no wars even in the horizon. Any feasible conflict today involves countries outside Europe: the US, China, Iran, Israel, Pakistan.

The only one halfway feasible now is NATO vs Russia, but even then we know that it's pretty much a US vs Russia thing.

They beat the numbers, because Chinese warfare had a lot to do with sieging cities, starving out populations, mass executions of captured enemies and even civilians, whereas prior to the "total wars" in Europe, conflicts were mainly fought between armed combatants, not focusing on civilian targets, and "gentleman rules" were largely in effect when it came down to aristocrats fighting other aristocrats.

Those Chinese conflicts also lasted 10 to 15 years which is why the number of casualties is as enormous as it is. A 10-15 year World War, would've certainly wiped out much of Europe.

Even taking all that into account the numbers are just too unbelievable. 100 million in 14 years comes out to 19,000+ every single day. That's just insane. Even the Nazis couldn't pull that off if they wanted. In fact, they went for gas chambers because they figured out that that was the most efficient way to carry out mass executions. A bullet to the head was too inefficient.

So for the Chinese with no mass transportation, no chemical warfare, no machine guns, no advanced communication system to even approach these numbers is just very hard to believe.

The famine angle may be more feasible. China and India with their giant populations have had huge famines with mass starvation throughout their histories so any large military conflict probably exacerbated them. Thirty Years' with its wiping out of almost 1/3 of central Europe probably still takes the cake though.

 

[TheGreatA]

Turkey being excluded from Europe would be a pretty poor argument, IMO. They're similar to Russia- partly European and partly Asian, but they've been such an important part of European history that they have to be included. Algeria and all of North Africa has never been even partly European.

And I do think this period of peace is unique. We're slowly getting close to a century and the Yugoslav wars are still the only significant ones. The most impressive thing is that there are no wars even in the horizon. Any feasible conflict today involves countries outside Europe: the US, China, Iran, Israel, Pakistan.

The only one halfway feasible now is NATO vs Russia, but even then we know that it's pretty much a US vs Russia thing.

North Africa has been ruled by European powers for most of its recent existence, especially if we are to acknowledge the Ottomans as an European power. I would definitely consider the Algerian war a conflict significant to Europe considering that it was one of France's last colonies establishing independent rule. But in any case it's not truly relevant to the conversation at hand.

I can certainly see plenty of possibilities for civil unrest in Europe's looming future. Spain is having an increasing number of problems maintaining federal rule over areas that demand independence, Southern Europe is probably going to have to continue dealing with a constant flow of immigrants. Russia's eventually going to have to deal with the inevitable power vacuum that has been created by Putin. Every rule has its end, and like Gaddafi, he hasn't exactly planned for succession. In recent times, Turkey has also shown a preference to military action and strongman-rule over diplomacy.

While nothing severe lies on the horizon, we ought to know that it only takes a small spark to turn everything on its head.

Even taking all that into account the numbers are just too unbelievable. 100 million in 14 years comes out to 19,000+ every single day. That's just insane. Even the Nazis couldn't pull that off if they wanted. In fact, they went for gas chambers because they figured out that that was the most efficient way to carry out mass executions. A bullet to the head was too inefficient.

So for the Chinese with no mass transportation, no chemical warfare, no machine guns, no advanced communication system to even approach these numbers is just very hard to believe.

The famine angle may be more feasible. China and India with their giant populations have had huge famines with mass starvation throughout their histories so any large military conflict probably exacerbated them. Thirty Years' with its wiping out of almost 1/3 of central Europe probably still takes the cake though.

The Nazis could've easily pulled that off. The problem is that they were unable to convince their allies to go along with plans to starve out cities like Leningrad, so the sieges were only partially successful. Finns remained at bay, allowing Soviets to resupply the citizens. A full-on siege would've likely led to millions of deaths in a single winter.

Starving people out is still the single most effective way to kill out entire populations. The Soviets did that in Ukraine. The Chinese had mastered the art long before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion#Total_war

The Soviets had a mass executioner who killed about 7,000 people in Poland by himself and his crew alone, reaching a pace of 300 kills a night, so it's certainly not impossible to imagine up to 19,000 executions a day. through a more coordinated effort (although in the case of the Chinese rebellions, the majority of deaths would've been the result of starvation and disease).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin

Hell, according to Chinese ancient history, they were apparently pretty adept at mass murdering people long before Europeans had really even figured out how to fight a proper war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Qi

 

[goldennirvana]

Come on, @helltoupee, a response is due for this: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/143931185/

I know you've read it, because you liked it. Pussying out, already?

 

[goldennirvana]

Turkey being excluded from Europe would be a pretty poor argument, IMO. They're similar to Russia- partly European and partly Asian, but they've been such an important part of European history that they have to be included.

The only 'European' part of Turkey is due to Turkish conquest. Turks have nothing to do with Europe outside of that. Turks are a central Asian/middle-eastern people and have had virtually no influence on European history outside of conquest, imperialism, slavery & genocide.

 

[helltoupee]

Come on, @helltoupee, a response is due for this: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/143931185/

I know you've read it, because you liked it. Pussying out, already?

I gave you a like because I think it's rude to just disappear after someone puts in the time to write a response.

You make some good points, and you make some that I don't agree with - I'm simply not motivated enough to get in a long drawn out argument with you. Chalk it up as a victory, I don't care.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

North Africa has been ruled by European powers for most of its recent existence, especially if we are to acknowledge the Ottomans as an European power. I would definitely consider the Algerian war a conflict significant to Europe considering that it was one of France's last colonies establishing independent rule. But in any case it's not truly relevant to the conversation at hand.

I can certainly see plenty of possibilities for civil unrest in Europe's looming future. Spain is having an increasing number of problems maintaining federal rule over areas that demand independence, Southern Europe is probably going to have to continue dealing with a constant flow of immigrants. Russia's eventually going to have to deal with the inevitable power vacuum that has been created by Putin. Every rule has its end, and like Gaddafi, he hasn't exactly planned for succession. In recent times, Turkey has also shown a preference to military action and strongman-rule over diplomacy.

While nothing severe lies on the horizon, we ought to know that it only takes a small spark to turn everything on its head.

Yeah, no one has a crystal ball but I see the possibilities as unlikely.

The Spain-Catalonia rift is completely diplomatic and political. In all the unrest that's happened I don't think I've heard of a single death, let alone even the hint of a possibility of civil war. The refugee and immigrant situation is serious, but it's certainly not going to lead to a state vs state dispute. The only ones that fantasize about that are white nationalists.

Russia might be the most volatile one but again, it has more to do the presence and actions of a non-European: the US. Turkey's aggression are almost exclusively directed towards the Asian part of their influence.

The Nazis could've easily pulled that off. The problem is that they were unable to convince their allies to go along with plans to starve out cities like Leningrad, so the sieges were only partially successful. Finns remained at bay, allowing Soviets to resupply the citizens. A full-on siege would've likely led to millions of deaths in a single winter.

Starving people out is still the single most effective way to kill out entire populations. The Soviets did that in Ukraine. The Chinese had mastered the art long before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion#Total_war

The Soviets had a mass executioner who killed about 7,000 people in Poland by himself and his crew alone, reaching a pace of 300 kills a night, so it's certainly not impossible to imagine up to 19,000 executions a day. through a more coordinated effort (although in the case of the Chinese rebellions, the majority of deaths would've been the result of starvation and disease).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin

Hell, according to Chinese ancient history, they were apparently pretty adept at mass murdering people long before Europeans had really even figured out how to fight a proper war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Qi

Come on, Blokhin's 7,000 was his absolute peak and were carried out through 28 days. For the Taiping to pull that off they'd need about 100 Blokhins working for almost a decade and a half (instead of 1 month) and who somehow got a hold of 20th century weapons, transportation, and logistics.

And according to the very definition of "total war", the only pre-WWI that involved non-Westerners was exactly the Taiping Rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

They also mention the Pawnee, Sioux, and Cheyenne but if you look at the source of that claim, you'll find it's a book about the Pawnee HELPING the US army, and using US weapons on their enemies.

The Chinese are worthy #2 in the butcher Olympics but Europeans still have the top spot.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah, no one has a crystal ball but I see the possibilities as unlikely.

The Spain-Catalonia rift is completely diplomatic and political. In all the unrest that's happened I don't think I've heard of a single death, let alone even the hint of a possibility of civil war. The refugee and immigrant situation is serious, but it's certainly not going to lead to a state vs state dispute. The only ones that fantasize about that are white nationalists.

Russia might be the most volatile one but again, it has more to do the presence and actions of a non-European: the US. Turkey's aggression are almost exclusively directed towards the Asian part of their influence.



Come on, Blokhin's 7,000 was his absolute peak and were carried out through 28 days. For the Taiping to pull that off they'd need about 100 Blokhins working for almost a decade and a half (instead of 1 month) and who somehow got a hold of 20th century weapons, transportation, and logistics.

And according to the very definition of "total war", the only pre-WWI that involved non-Westerners was exactly the Taiping Rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

They also mention the Pawnee, Sioux, and Cheyenne but if you look at the source of that claim, you'll find it's a book about the Pawnee HELPING the US army, and using US weapons on their enemies.

The Chinese are worthy #2 in the butcher Olympics but Europeans still have the top spot.

To have 100 Blokhins working day and night in China, wouldn't be a stretch, considering their enormous population (even then). They would've probably had thousands of Blokhins. But obviously a large part of the dead were not executed, but died from starvation and disease. Nonetheless, the war greatly contributed to the numbers of dead during that time.

The Asians were strongly competing with the Europeans for #1 butcher spot even when the Europeans were fighting World Wars. And prior to modern era, they obviously had a much stronger claim.

"Chinese sources list the total number of military and non-military casualties, both dead and wounded, at 35 million.[194] Dr Duncan Anderson, Head of the Department of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy, UK, writing for BBC states that the total number of casualties was around 20 million.[195]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War

People severely under-estimate how much they've massacred each other because our Western perspective is so solely focused on what the Europeans have done.

" A recorded 20.77 million population reduction in Shaanxi and Gansu occurred due to migration and war related death. A further 74.5% population reduction occurred in Gansu, and 44.7% in Shaanxi. In Shaanxi, 83.7% (~5.2 million) of the total loss occurred in the period of war as a consequence of mass migration and war-related death.[2][3]Many civilian deaths were also caused by famine due to war conditions.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_Revolt_(1862–77)

"The initial conquest of China by the Manchus was one of the most devastating wars in Chinese history. Examples of the devastation include the Yangzhou massacre; in which some 800,000 people, including women and children, were massacred.[202] Whole provinces, such as Sichuan and Jiangnan, were thoroughly devastated and depopulated by the Manchu conquest, which killed an estimated 25 million people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing#Aftermath

 

[Natty Dread]

Justin treudue woukd be proud.

 

[goldennirvana]

I gave you a like because I think it's rude to just disappear after someone puts in the time to write a response.

You make some good points, and you make some that I don't agree with - I'm simply not motivated enough to get in a long drawn out argument with you. Chalk it up as a victory, I don't care.

Oh, you know damn well I'm right. I don't need to chalk it up as anything (the fact you would even say that is very telling). You challenge me time & time again and the result is always the same. Maybe you'll have learned your lesson, finally, this time.

You for damn sure would be motivated to get into a long drawn out argument with me if you had confidence you were right. But, you don't. Hence your final response.

 

[lifelessheap]

Europeans were living in caves and bathing once a year until POOF ... diversity brought you mathematics, sciences, written languages, large scale agriculture, laws, information storage and retrieval, medicine, etc etc etc, basically the building blocks of what you now take for granted as civilization.

Did we see Egyptians, Greeks, Indians...blah blah blah...mass immigration...blah...? Of course not. Are you not aware that the ability to move somewhere, if most peasants at the time even knew there was a somewhere else, is not the same as it is today? More than 90% of the humans alive at those times worked the fields by the sweat of their brow. This is the big question that you are fascinated by? LOL.

For the entirety of history human cultures have been entirely in flux. No culture has remained stagnant. Small, simple cultures gradually coalesce into bigger more complex civilizations. This racially pure utopia that you yearn for is a pipe dream.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I coached a kid whose dad is the ambassdaor of Tajikistan.

He would pick up his kid from practice in a Mercedes as he left work.

However, during weekend tournaments, he would drive his son in Toyota Corolla.

Clearly this guy didnt use his government vehicle for personal use. I thought that was cool.

The people of Tajikisatn should be proud.